The occupation of Nitaskinan is an issue of great importance to the Atikamekw. It has been a recurrent theme in this research, and in each of the sub-studies presented in the following chapters. It is also an issue that has been examined by other researchers, both among the Atikamekw and among other Algonkian peoples.

Within Nitaskinan , the Atikamekw had an established system of territorial organisation based on two elements – the family territories and the trapping circuits. The importance of family territories and hunting groups among the Algonkian peoples was first described by Speck (1915). At Wemotaci, family territories, natoho aski in Atikamekw, have been mapped several times since 1928 (Davidson 1928), and Map 3 illustrates current natoho aski as identified by the CNA. Dandenault (1983) presents a series of maps that illustrate changing delimitations of these territories. He also notes that Davidson’s map is based on a concept of private property that reflects European views, rather than those of the Atikamekw. Leacock (1954), examining Montagnais family territories, argues that such territories probably developed in response to the demands of the fur trade. Mailhot and Vincent (1980) described the flexibility of the Montagnais system of hunting territories and the ways in whish hunters could arrange use of another area. They also noted that Montagnais consider themselves to be responsible for the proper management of a territory, and that they are “guardians” rather than “owners”. Gélinas (2003) notes that although the areas occupied by various families remained consistent, there were many exchanges between families. Accordingly, the natoho aski should probably be regarded as flexible subdivisions of Nitaskinan that were modified to reflect the needs of the society, rather than as strict lines delimiting the property of a particular family. Certainly, the trapping lots designated by the provincial government in 1951 do not correctly represent the way that the Atikamekw occupy Nitaskinan (compare Map 3, page 91 and Map 4, page 96). Dandenault (1983) believes that the Beaver Reserve probably created more problems than it resolved.

Within natoho aski , individual Atikamekw and smaller family groups maintained trapping circuits; routes that they would follow in order to place traps, to seek other materials, or to travel through the territory. These circuits, atosk meskano or natoho meskano , have also been described by Dandenault (1983), and by the Association Mamo Atoskewin Atikamekw (AMAA, see Chapter 4). The AMAA has also documented knowledge held by elders and by others about each territory, and the animals, plants and the human presence on the territory. Poirier (2001) describes how Atikamekw elders use itineraries, along waterways and across the land, as ways of indicating the territory. These itineraries include places, experiences and stories. They represent an “engagement” with the territory, a sense of collective and individual identity, not just an area that is determined by lines on a map. The flexibility of natoho aski and the importance of circuits and itineraries as ways of representing the territory suggest that Atikamekw occupation of Nitaskinan is better understood as a journey through the territory and as a living place, rather than as the establishment of a fixed domain.

The Atikamekw engagement with Nitaskinan also extends to the other inhabitants, to the animals, plants, water and the earth itself. Wemotaci elder, Charles Coocoo, describes the close relationship between the Atikamekw and the animals, presenting hunting as a spiritual act carried out with full respect for the animal (Coocoo 2001). Poirier notes that in the Atikamekw language, animals, plants and the land can be referred to as “beings” in the same way as human beings (Poirier, pers. comm .). This relationship between people and their environment has been closely examined among the Cree of northern Québec, where animals are seen as being fundamentally similar to humans (Scott and Webber 2001). Within this relationship, animals give themselves to the Cree and the Cree respect this gift and the giver (Feit 1973; Tanner 1979). Hunting practices, religious rites and ideology all demonstrate the importance of the relationship between people and their environment. Ingold (1996) notes that this reciprocal relationship is what outside observers refer to as “hunting”.

These concepts of the Atikamekw engagement with Nitaskinan demonstrate an important element in the perception of forestlands. For the Atikamekw there is no fundamental division between “culture” and “nature”, between Wemotaci iriniw and Nitaskinan . The existence of a dichotomy between nature and culture has long been a basis of western thought, and of anthropological analyses (Ingold 1996). In this framework, forestlands and the animals that live there, are completely distinct from humans, and human use of forestlands implies going there, taking what is needed, and then returning home. However, in reviewing research on hunter-gatherer societies around the world, Ingold argues that this dichotomy often does not apply. Instead, recognising the engagement of humans in their environment enables the world to be understood as an environment for people, not as “nature” separated from human “culture” (Ingold 1996). Accepting this interpretation suggests that Atikamekw culture is intimately linked to their forest environment and to animals as other beings that share this environment. Nitaskinan is perceived as a place to live, and systems of knowledge and territorial organisation represent ways of living on forestlands^[17]. This relationship with Nitaskinan becomes a key element in understanding the Atikamekw paradigm for forestlands.

If the last two hundred years have seen an increasing kawapisit presence in Nitaskinan , it is important to understand how the Atikamekw have reacted to this presence. Colonisation of the Haute-Mauricie brought many problems for the Atikamekw society, notably the loss of access to territory and reduction in animal populations due to settlement, dams, and forest exploitation (Gélinas 2003; Lavoie 1999). In 1977, Clermont reviewed the history of Wemotaci, describing the change from traditional ways of life, with increasing acculturation through the influences of the fur trade, missionaries and schools, the loss of the territory to Euro-Canadians, and the development of a money economy. He concluded by noting that a return to the traditional lifestyle was impossible for the Atikamekw, and that they were faced with choosing between extinction, abandoning their territory, and integration into a money economy (Clermont 1977, p 127).

This trend continues. As demonstrated in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, despite near-permanent habitation in the village of Wemotaci since the 1970s (when Clermont wrote his history), the Atikamekw have maintained an occupation of Nitaskinan and have consistently attempted to influence kawapisit management of these forestlands. Although there is no doubt that kawapisit encroachment into Nitaskinan lead to many difficulties, the Atikamekw have also worked to incorporate Euro-Canadian developments into their lifestyles and into their occupation of Nitaskinan. The Atikamekw, along with other indigenous peoples (as described in Chapter 1), are establishing their own contemporanity through the integration of new developments with their traditional values, practices and knowledge (Poirier 2000).

Faced with the increasing encroachment of kawapisit , the Atikamekw have negotiated with governments to maintain their occupation of Nitaskinan . In 1881, four Atikamekw chiefs asked the federal government to establish two reserves, including one at Wemotaci. The chiefs explained that animals, notably rabbits and beaver, were becoming scarce and that “ we want to be able to spare them ” (Gélinas 2003, p 77). Gelinas notes that the Atikamekw saw the reserves as a way of enabling them to manage their traditional territories. Conversely, the federal government was beginning to doubt the effectiveness of its policy of using reserves to encourage assimilation of Indians into Canadian society. When the reserves at Wemotaci and Coucoucache were established in 1895, these represented much less territory than the Atikamekw needed to maintain hunting and trapping to support their population.

Even as a reserve, this limited territory was sought for economic development. In 1914, forestry companies applied to the Department of Indian Affairs to log the reserve, while others proposed that the Atikamekw be moved to another location (Gélinas 2003). With the assistance of their missionary, the Atikamekw appealed to the government, opposing the timber sale. Nevertheless, permission was finally given for logging on the reserve, with payments for timber being used to establish a fund managed by the government.

Map 4 Kawapisit on Nitaskinan The Beaver Reserve, railway lines and some Euro-Canadian settlements

Map data : Conseil de la Nation Atikamekw, Gouvernement du Québec, Government of Canada

Since 1979, the Atikamekw have been negotiating with the federal and provincial governments for recognition of their rights on Nitaskinan . As described in Chapter 1, Canadian federal government policy has been that First Nations relinquish undefined rights. However, the Atikamekw (and the Innu) have refused to accept extinction of their rights (CAM 1979). This may be compared to the position negotiated with the Cree in the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, also signed in 1975 (Dupuis 1993). The JBNQA replaced undefined Aboriginal rights on this territory with new rights as determined in the negotiations (see Chapter 1). Dupuis notes that Atikamekw and Innu insistence on maintaining their rights has been a critical stumbling block in negotiations.

In 1994, the Québec government proposed an agreement enlarging existing reserves for the Atikamekw and the Innu, and the co-management of public lands outside these reserves (Charest 2001). Both Nations rejected this proposal because of the small areas added to the reserves, and the lack of control over natural resources on the public lands. Charest notes that the co-management arrangements were not clearly described in the government proposal, and that it appeared to exchange Aboriginal rights for more limited rights to “traditional activities”. Neither the Atikamekw nor the Innu were prepared to relinquish their rights to the occupation of their territories.

Currently, twenty-five years after commencement, negotiations are still underway between the Atikamekw and the governments, while the provincial government continues to authorize Kawapisit uses such as forestry, mining and recreation development. The year 2002 saw an agreement in principle with four communities of the Innu nation, confirming the existence of their traditional rights, rather than seeking to extinguish these. However, there has been no such agreement involving the Atikamekw, for whom the recognition of their rights and the refusal of extinction continue to be key positions in their negotiations^[18]. Occupation of Nitaskinan and responsibilities towards it remain crucial issues.

This brief review of Atikamekw history demonstrates the importance that the Atikamekw attach to occupying Nitaskinan . Anthropological research suggests that this occupation is based on an engagement with Nitaskinan and with the other beings that live there, necessitating a reciprocal respect and establishing responsibility for the effects of human actions. The Atikamekw system of territorial organisation and their perception of the territory reflect itineraries through forestlands, rather than the delimitation of areas of land analogous to private property. Although Euro-Canadian development of Nitaskinan has increased demands upon the animals and plants that were previously available only to the Atikamekw, this development has brought new opportunities for Atikamekw occupation. The effects of these changes on the occupation of Nitaskinan , and the way traditional systems continue to apply, will be examined in Chapter 5. Through negotiations with governments, the Atikamekw have attempted to obtain recognition of their continuing occupation of Nitaskinan , and have refused to accept proposals that require them to relinquish their rights to this territory. This understanding of the Atikamekw experience over the last two hundred years suggests that their involvement in forestry, and specifically in the Scierie Tackipotcikan , is their most recent step in integrating Euro-Canadian developments into the Atikamekw lifestyle, looking for ways that will permit their continued occupation of Nitaskinan .

In Chapter 1 I introduced the concept of the forest management system, incorporating the forest resource, the management bureaucracy, industries and the public, including First Nations (Miller, Gale et al. 1987). In Québec, the term “regime” is often used to describe the political and administrative system established to exploit and manage forest resources, incorporating the legal framework, and the roles and responsibilities of the government, the industry and other parties (MRNQ 1998). This regime directs the actions of all parties in the forest sector, including the industry, the Atikamekw and the government forestry ministry (MRNQ). The regime is also in constant evolution as various parties attempt to modify it, and as the government responds to social concerns with new legislation.

Québec’s forestry regime, as it existed at the time of this study, included the following elements of particular importance to relations between the Atikamekw and the industry^[22]:

It is important to note that forestry companies have significant responsibilities for forest management under this regime. However, private companies must also comply with economic considerations and make profits for return to their owners or shareholders. Income for forestry companies is generally derived from the sales of wood products, while forest management activities are costs that must be incurred in order to obtain raw materials. Accordingly, the industry needs to minimise costs associated with forest management^[24]. For forestry companies, Québec’s forestry regime provides them with a supply of wood from the public forests, but also requires that they manage these forests for long-term timber production in accordance with government regulations.

In Québec ingénieurs forestiers, as professional foresters are known, have a critical role in management of forestlands. The Forestry Act (and associated regulations) specifies particular obligations for ingénieurs forestiers , while another law requires that people acting in this capacity must be members of the Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec (OIFQ). Forest management plans must be prepared by members of the OIFQ, while individual ingénieurs forestiers work for forestry companies, the government and other organisations in a wide variety of tasks related to management of forestlands. Almost all of Québec’s 2000 ingénieurs forestiers are also graduates of the Forestry program at Université Laval.

«Within their professional obligation to manage forestlands, ingénieurs forestiers have adopted a number of guiding principles. The origins of forestry science are commonly accepted to lie in Germany in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where forests were to be managed to ensure a sustainable supply of wood for utilisation (Wiersum 1999). As noted above and in » Chapter 1 «, “sustainable yield” has been an important principle for forestry in Québec and Canada. Duerr, Teeguarden et al. (1982) note that sustained yield is the most enduring doctrine of classical forestry. However, they also describe three other tenets that are central to forestry: the primacy of timber as a forest product; the long time spans of forestry, implying that the future should be managed as the past; and management to absolute standards. These principles will affect, at least in part, decisions made by foresters. »

Within Québec, the professional characteristics of ingénieur forestiers were examined by Dubois (1986), himself an ingénieur forestier , member of the OIFQ, and graduate of Université Laval. He described the emphasis placed by foresters on the rational management of forest resources, and a corporate perception that this management can only be achieved through the application of science and planning techniques of which they themselves are the masters. Dubois notes two fundamental values for foresters: Science as a base for rational planning, and the economic interests of the industry. His principal critique of ingénieur forestiers is that, through a “fetish” for rational planning, they are justifying the economic domination of Québec’s forestlands by the forest industry. While such an interpretation may be extreme, it does highlight the importance that foresters attach to scientific and technical management of forests and to the production of timber.

However, while ingénieurs forestiers as a group may have similar training and share some common principles, they are not homogenous. In a classical treatise on the environment, Aldo Leopold, himself a forester by training, noted two types of foresters: those who were “ content to grow trees as cabbages, with cellulose as the basic forest commodity ” and those who see “ forestry as fundamentally different from agronomy because it employs natural species, and manages a natural environment rather than creating an artificial one” (Leopold 1949 p. 259) . In Québec, forest management uses native species and manages the natural environment, but the forestry regime is also focused on timber as the basic forest commodity. Even within Leopold’s second category, foresters are seen as managing the forest, an activity that requires special knowledge and understanding.

In their analysis of US Forest Service employees, Brown and Harris (1992) contrasted two different forestry paradigms. The dominant paradigm emphasizes technical approaches to the production of commodities, principally timber and grazing. But Brown and Harris also noted the emergence of a new resource management paradigm shared by a limited number of employees, promoting less intensive management, participative decision-making and the importance of amenity values. They concluded that Forest Service employees were increasingly questioning the timber production bias in the agency and that new forest management values were being adopted. In a study of ingénieurs forestiers in Québec, Guay (1988) noted a similar debate within the profession between partisians of ecological forestry and those of traditional forestry. He also reported that foresters felt that the public did not respect their profession and that they (the foresters) were seeking an increased recognition of their competance and their responsibility as managers of the public forests. Bouthillier (2001) has also described changes in Québec’s forestry regime, and the efforts of various foresters to promote new ideas concerning the multiple functions of forests and public participation, among other issues. However, Bouthillier also noted that, despite a new forest protection strategy and the inclusion of sustainable development criteria, the forest regime in 1996 “ remains, as ever, primarily oriented towards industry (Bouthillier 2001 p. 271).

Professional foresters in Québec are not simply neutral parties in forest management: instead they have particular responsibilities, values and training. Their role is not simply that of cutting forests to produce timber, but rather one of managing forest resources. The place of the ingénieur forestier as a specialist manager of forestlands is supported by the forestry regime, by the OIFQ and by the industry. These factors lead to management systems that are based on forestry science, on the importance of the timber industry, and on confidence in the role of foresters as specialist managers of forestlands.

Companies within the forest industry are neither neutral nor identical. The history of both Smurfit-Stone and Crête presented here shows a long involvement in the exploitation and management of the Haute-Mauricie forests, together with an involvement in the communities and the people that live there. These characteristics also appear to contribute to their interest in establishing relations with the Atikamekw. However, these companies must also operate within the Québec forestry regime, following roles and responsibilities determined by this regime. This responsibility for forest management, together with the regulations under the regime and the role of professional foresters, is aimed at rational and scientific management of forestlands to produce a sustained yield of wood to the industry. These companies are also part of the private sector, and are obliged to make profits for their owners, whether these are local families or distant shareholders. Although they are interested in working with the Atikamekw to manage the forestlands of the Haute-Mauricie , both Smurfit-Stone and Crête have a primary role as profitable manufacturers of wood products.